Multiple publicly disclosed vulnerabilities allow random code execution when previewing malicious content using OWA (Outlook Web Access). The vulnerabilities are situated in the webready (to display attachments) and Data Loss Prevention (DLP) components.
Of interest is to note that
- it was Oracle who disclosed the vulnerabilities in their patch updates in April and July 2013. Microsoft licensed the vulnerable libraries from Oracle.
- There are also functional changes non security changes rolled up into this update

A memory corruption vulnerability in the Windows NAT driver allows for a denial of service (DoS) situation that would cause the system to stop responding till restated. Relies on malicious ICMP packets. Unrelated to MS13-065.

A memory allocation problem in the ICMPv6 implementation allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS). Exploitation would cause the system to stop responding till restarted. Unrelated to MS13-064.

Active Directory Federation Services (AD FS) could reveal information about the service account used. This information could as an example subsequently be used in a Denial of Service attack by locking the account out, causing all users that rely on the federated service to be locked out as well.

We will update issues on this page for about a week or so as they evolve.We appreciate updates
US based customers can call Microsoft for free patch related support on 1-866-PCSAFETY

(*): ISC rating

We use 4 levels:

PATCH NOW: Typically used where we see immediate danger of exploitation. Typical environments will want to deploy these patches ASAP. Workarounds are typically not accepted by users or are not possible. This rating is often used when typical deployments make it vulnerable and exploits are being used or easy to obtain or make.

Critical: Anything that needs little to become "interesting" for the dark side. Best approach is to test and deploy ASAP. Workarounds can give more time to test.

Important: Things where more testing and other measures can help.

Less Urgent: Typically we expect the impact if left unpatched to be not that big a deal in the short term. Do not forget them however.

The difference between the client and server rating is based on how you use the affected machine. We take into account the typical client and server deployment in the usage of the machine and the common measures people typically have in place already. Measures we presume are simple best practices for servers such as not using outlook, MSIE, word etc. to do traditional office or leisure work.

The rating is not a risk analysis as such. It is a rating of importance of the vulnerability and the perceived or even predicted threat for affected systems. The rating does not account for the number of affected systems there are. It is for an affected system in a typical worst-case role.

Only the organization itself is in a position to do a full risk analysis involving the presence (or lack of) affected systems, the actually implemented measures, the impact on their operation and the value of the assets involved.

All patches released by a vendor are important enough to have a close look if you use the affected systems. There is little incentive for vendors to publicize patches that do not have some form of risk to them.

(**): The exploitability rating we show is the worst of them all due to the too large number of ratings Microsoft assigns to some of the patches.